Google making Chromium block adblockers?

Vort

@Gwen-Dragon said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

Perhaps if such change of Google can be back-patched.

Nothing can prevent this.
It may be just too hard.

The problem is that authors of extensions also will make decisions.
And that decisions may be not compatible with backporting of existing Chrome functionality.
Forking both Chrome and adblocker features will be even harder.

Steffie

Now this latest... https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/chrome-ad-blockers-to-get-full-api-access-via-free-enterprise-policies/ Clearly Raymond Hill remains unhappy & disgruntled, but sorry to say i've been unable to understand from this latest article if this new statement from evilcorp brings us some glimmer of hope, or if it's mere weasel-words.

dalinar

whatever happened to "Don't be Evil" lol - eliminating ad blockers ability in chrome I can live with, but doing this to chromium is just plain mean

xyzzy

@Steffie The glass may still be half-full. If Google ends up providing a "full-featured" webRequest API that can be enabled through a Policy, and they continue to distribute the full source code, then that same code could also be enabled by default in any Chromium-based browser. It may even be possible for non-Enterprise users to enable full webRequest functionality in Chrome just by setting some Registry keys/property lists/whatever it takes to enable the required Policy on a particular OS.

The next question is, what will the extension developers do? It sounds like the updated proposed declarativeNetRequest API isn't powerful enough or useful enough for content blockers like uMatrix and uBlock Origin. Those same extensions will still continue to exist for Firefox. Will uMatrix and uBlock Origin (and similar extensions) continue to be developed in their current form for Chromium-based browsers that support the "Enterprise" webRequest API?

The frustrating part is that we still don't know how final Manifest v3 really is.

Here's another article on this topic that contains the following statement from Google:

Chrome supports the use and development of ad blockers. We’re actively working with the developer community to get feedback and iterate on the design of a privacy-preserving content filtering system that limits the amount of sensitive browser data shared with third parties.

Google's argument/justification, that crippling the webRequest API is being done to "improve performance", isn't holding any water and their official position still seems to be shifting. I also still haven't seen an updated version of the Manifest v3 spec so there's not much more that I can add. We'll just have to wait and see how this whole mess pans out.

CaptainD

I don't think it helps the discussion if all focus is on add blocking. The insistence on blocking undiscriminatingly all adds is rather selfish, after all most websites/-services need some sort of revenue. So I am all OK if the visited platform presents some adds in a well behaved way.

However, what I cannot accept is the plethora of 3rd party tracking JS that almost all websites come with these days. There is pretty much only uMatrix to the rescue. So Vivaldi and uMatrix have been good friends to protect my privacy. Too me, it is only a side effect that I also see less ads. (BTW good old Opera 12 had a bit of the uMatrix functionality built in already).

So if uMatrix won't work anymore and Vivaldi won't add a similar feature on their own, then I will have to switch to Firefox. I won't like it, but it'll be the lesser of two evils then.

I wish Jon von Tetzchner would issue a clear statement of what is going to happen.

Vort

@xyzzy said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

If Google ends up providing a "full-featured" webRequest API that can be enabled through a Policy, and they continue to distribute the full source code, then that same code could also be enabled by default in any Chromium-based browser.

Theoretically it is possible.
But since the final goal is to squeeze money from the users against their will, this outcome is highly unlikely.

dalinar

@Vort I love how whenever someone reports anything like this by Google or similar things by other companies (like Gilette could make a better Razor but that would hurt their bottom line) as "a cynic would say"... TIL cynic=rational person

CaptainD

I guess I was not explaining myself very well. This thread seems to be the one with the biggest traction in this forum that discusses Googles planned changes. The changes are very profound and affect more than just ad blocking.

However, just focusing on ad blocking is simply wasting anyone's time. No decisions maker at Google/Chromium/Vivaldi supports an original right to block all ads. This is an argument that cannot be won. No one will even listen.

Privacy (tracking, spying) is a different animal. This is the flag Vivaldi is sailing under and the reason for many of us to use Vivaldi. While (3rd party) cookies are still a privacy concern, todays 3rd party JS code is doing just the same if not better, or is even outright malicious. The planned changes will force-load all JS code into the browser by removing the API that could prevent this. The privacy/safety argument is the only one that could stop the changes from happening. (And yes, as a positive side effect, ad blocker would continue to work.)

I hope Vivaldi devs are arguing with the Chromium devs this way as well. If they lose this battle, they will lose quite a number of users.

LonM

@CaptainD I agree with you. I think the issue is conflated grossly by the fact that the majority of ads on the internet are also privacy invasive trackers.

Steffie

@CaptainD I use uMatrix. Atm my uM "My Rules" tab totals 1,516 entries. Whilst i tremendously appreciate that uM blocks ads, that's nonetheless only a side-benefit for me; my primary motivation for using it, & to have taken so much detailed trouble over the past few years to carefully discern & curate all my custom rules, is to protect me from all the nasty scripts, & web-workers, & cookies, & hyperlink auditing. I'm not panicking yet, & i still [naively?] feel that somehow this will wind up with a happy ending, but i already know that if the worst-case scenario were to eventuate, my days using V, & all chromium-based browsers, would be over. As someone who fell in love with V & began using it full-time from Feb 2015, that would be terribly painful... but it would be unavoidable if the evilcorp bastards get their way.

dalinar

@Steffie I think it's just marketing... these things are all similar.. whether they call themselves ad blockers or privacy protectors just depends on who they are targeting. Or if I'm wrong, someone please explain why.. it seems redundant to use an ad blocker and privacy protector when you can just use a decent ad blocker and make sure you have the correct lists subscribed to to avoid tracking and such things as well.

Steffie

@dalinar said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

redundant to use an ad blocker and privacy protector

And i don't. I use uMatrix.

dalinar

@Steffie ah sorry I was just assuming it was one of those typical privacy list tools.. I think I installed it before but was scared it might break pages

Steffie

@dalinar said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

it might break pages

uM does break pages, unless & until you understand how to use it, & take the trouble to manage it. Once you're on top of that, it's a fabulous tool.

dalinar

@Steffie seems interesting, I just tried it but looks like I'd have edit rules on every single site that seems tedious. Youtube wouldn't play anything with it enabled. Arstechnica couldn't load any comments. Hopefully someone will make something like this one day that will pull specific rules for each site from a database so that as much can be blocked as possible without making the site unusable.

LonM

@dalinar Jus to edge us back on topic, uMatrix takes a lot of configuration so as a result it is probably the most "dynamic" of blockers out there.

I could envisage regular uBlockOrigin maybe getting around the proposed v3 with some combination of lists, but uMatrix would be up a creek without a paddle if the dynamic blocking system was removed.

Steffie

@LonM said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

but uMatrix would be up a creek without a paddle if the dynamic blocking system was removed

Prezactly, hence my anxiety.

dalinar

@raed ah, thanks maybe I should try it again

Vort

@CaptainD said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

This is an argument that cannot be won. No one will even listen.

It is the most important thing.
But you are right, that politically it is better to talk about privacy.

@raed said in Google making Chromium block adblockers?:

but all our troubles would be over if extensions could be made to run in their own environment and used as a proxy by the browser

"Bad" content can arrive to user with the help of JavaScript.
To track it with a proxy, proxy should know how it will be executed.
So it should perform significant amount of browser`s work to do this.

steveshank

CaptainD wrote:
"just focusing on ad blocking is simply wasting anyone's time. No decisions maker at Google/Chromium/Vivaldi supports an original right to block all ads. This is an argument that cannot be won. No one will even listen."

I think you are entirely, horribly wrong. The advertising problem is worse and more dangerous than the tracking problem. This is because of Malvertising. Hidden scripts, viruses etc. are infecting millions of advertisements on any site that blocks out space for agencies to stick in whatever they happen to get. This has been covered extensively, just search for malvertising.

I won't let my clients browse without an ad blocker for their safety. Nothing to do with advertising. As long as no one is liable for infecting people through advertising, not the website, or the ad agency who spews it out, or the compiler who compiles the ads, then there is no protection for users unless they use an ad-blocker.

Ad blocking is a basic essential requirement for safety on the web, probably as important as a windows anti-virus.